Worldview Blog

Having just blasted John McCain as an insane, crusading militarist in my previous post, I realize that I am missing an important part of the picture. If you watch this November 2007 video of McCain talking with Charlie Rose, you will realize that he has effective powers of communication, which may well seduce the center-right of America and sweep him to power, especially if Shrillary is his opponent. He sounds reasonable and balanced on the surface, and he presents his views with a persuasive and a reassuring voice, much like Obama. We should remember that Reagan, who backed death squads in Central America against an insignificant Communist 'threat', was also a genial 'communicator' who charmed pundits and public alike. The Irish seem to be good at this, which explains all the successful American politicians of Irish origin, including good guys like Ted Kennedy.

McCain's persuasive message

The video starts out by discussing Iraq. McCain claims that the surge is working, that we have 'turned things around from the failed Rumsfeld strategy', that the Sunnis are turning against Al Qaeda, but he also concedes that ethnic divisions persist and the government is not functioning. Shiite militia penetration of the national police remains a problem, but the Iraqi army is 'doing an effective job'. The Iranians are causing trouble, and suicide bombers are very difficult to foil. He argues that it is not our presence in Iraq per se that bothers the American public but only an excess of casualties. We have troops all over the world, without anybody caring, as long as they aren't dying. The surge has taken care of the bloodshed in Iraq, at least for the moment, and we must be 'responsible' and stay until Iraq has a decent government. This is McCain's basic message on Iraq.

Frankly, this message will persuade a great many Americans. As long as there is no renewed bloodbath in Iraq prior to the election, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama also feels compelled to talk along these lines. We could well be in Iraq for years or decades to come, as McCain has glibly reminded us in a recent soundbite.

Flaws in McCain's message

First, notice that there is no discussion of the morality of the invasion. It is now abundantly clear that the IAEA was reporting good progress with their inspections prior to the invasion, so that the war was simply unjustified on the grounds of any imminent WMD threat. McCain barely mentions WMDs except to remark that Saddam 'might have developed them' in the future. (I guess we never even needed evidence! This senator surely has a low threshold for invading another nation.) Instead, he breezily remarks that it was a 'great success' to overthrow Saddam, and the problem is that Rumsfeld screwed up the occupation. This common view among conservatives and centrists in the United States is dangerous in many ways. International law simply does not allow pre-emptive invasion for the sake of regime change or to thwart future hypothetical dangers. That would be nothing but a war of aggression, and it sets a very destabilizing precedent. What if China invaded Taiwan on the grounds of 'regime change'? Would we want a war with China, which would be terribly bloody for us if it were waged on the mainland? Furthermore, it is much too easy to say that Rumsfeld screwed up the occupation, as though he really had a choice. The sectarian divisions and general resistance to occupation were entirely predictable.

In a word, we see how easy it is for some reasonable and virtuous-sounding rhetoric to get us embroiled in a mess. Just designate someone as a 'bad guy', even if he was once a 'good guy' back when he was useful to us. Isn't it virtuous to go get a bad guy? Isn't that a good thing? Mad John McCain is so virtuous! As for the possible consequences, all we have to do is make sure we 'do it right'? If we have suffered bloody quagmires in the past, it's simply because we didn't do it right. Never mind that the Vietnamese considered us a colonial occupier. We simply didn't do it right: didn't bomb enough targets, kill enough enemies, spread enough effective propaganda to win hearts and minds, and so on. Read this interview with David Hackworth, our most decorated Vietnam war veteran. Unlike McCain, he didn't see fighting from the sky but from the ground, i.e. from the point of view of reality. He knew that the Viet Cong were determined and couldn't be beaten on their turf, no matter how ruthless we were.

And now that we're stuck in Iraq, we must be 'responsible' and stay until peace can prevail without us. One problem with this policy is that we cannot know what will happen if and when we leave, so that we must effectively stay for a very long time, as McCain cheerfully concedes. Meanwhile, our presence generates intense resentment and amounts to clamping the lid on the pot until it finally boils over. Even a Brzezinski understands that the days of neo-colonialism are over; people just won't take it any more, least of all tough Muslims who aren't afraid to die. The temporary lull is deceptive. The different factions are merely resting up and rearming. In fact, it is often the Americans who are supplying arms, since all it takes is a temporary promise that this or that group is 'on our side'. We take the bait every time, since we don't really understand the people and don't know what the hell we are doing.

The magic words 'responsibility' and 'stability' have justified empire since time immemorial. The simple fact is that other people don't want to be occupied, period. We should start to leave, and that pressure will force Iraqis to make a choice, as they should. McCain also pontificates on the rule of law, without which democracy is impossible. By now, the ethnic groups have been pretty much separated (i.e. ethnically cleansed) thanks to our good services. Something like the usual Middle Eastern tribal rule of law maintains relative peace within ethnic groups. The big question is whether there will be a civil war. This can only be answered by Iraqis, and the question of 'rule of law' is rather irrelevant when it comes to civil war. We should simply start to leave and do what we can to help Iraqis work out a solution. Right now, they have no incentive, and indeed they are making little progress.

McCain continues with the ignorant and bigotted Islamofascist rhetoric now fashionable among Republicans. 'We are going to win this struggle, my friend, against radical Islam', he says. No mention that Muslim terrorism might be blowback against our Middle Eastern policies, which perhaps we should change. No, as usual with Republicans, and even many Democrats, it's all about ideology, just as it was during the Cold War. We are simply the good guys, and there is a great evil out there to fight. This makes us feel so good and justifies our incessant meddling in the affairs of other countries. It's a wonderfully deceitful pretext for empire.

Regarding our image problem, McCain assures us that many of the world's leaders still respect us and want to work with us, e.g. in France, Germany, Japan and most other developed countries. I am beginning to suspect that these leaders simply feel that this is best for business. It is often said that the United States likes going it alone, cowboys that we are, but actually the plutocrats of the world seem to form a club that transcends national and democratic boundaries. Most of the 'democracies' of the developed world are effectively run by a plutocracy, as we are. These different plutocracies may really sympathize with American hegemony, notwithstanding the occasional rhetoric for public consumption. They look up to the US, since we are the world leader in making the rich richer and emasculating true democracy. The dead in Iraq and elsewhere are a secondary issue. We have seen plenty of evidence that democratic freedoms are under assault wherever Big Business predominates. How democratic is the European Union? And how democratic is it for Sarkozy to bypass a popular vote on the new EU constitution, considering the previous heated rejection by the French people?

Anyway, McCain seems to think that our image problem is mainly with young people. His solution? Join the global warming bandwagon. I consider global warming to be a lot of hype, which the powers-that-be of the West have adapted to their purposes. It deflects the discussion from social equality and US foreign policy, while providing a veneer of progressivism. I'm afraid that a great many on the left are being duped by this one. In a similar way, McCain's protests against torture and Guantanamo, while commendable in themselves, seem suspiciously convenient as a device to mitigate criticism of overall establishment policy. In Vietnam, we would make a great show out of providing humanitarian relief and medical help to the Vietnamese, after bombing the hell out of them. I think it would have been even more humanitarian not to have invaded and bombed them in the first place. The plutocrats are great believers in advertising and propaganda.

The bottom line is that McCain, for all his soothing and mature sounding rhetoric, will most likely get us into perpetual war. Just as people are stirred by stories with a simple tale of good vs. evil, so can they be seduced into an eternal crusade, especially if only a few are asked to pay any real price, such as sacrificing life and limb. Even those of us who are a bit more sophisticated are nevertheless tempted by the futile desire to control events in our favor. This leads to CIA shenanigans and bases everywhere in the world, i.e. to American Empire. Leaving aside the morality of empire, as well as the concomitant danger to our domestic freedoms, we are simply overstretched with a massive, unsustainable debt and economic catastrophe staring us in the face. When the crunch finally comes, what will president McCain do? Nuke those to whom we have sold ourselves? (I wouldn't be surprised.)

A few of McCain's potential weaknesses

UPDATE (9 Feb 08): Joe Conason makes some good points. The immigration and surveillance issues could have been effective Republican weapons against the Democrats, even with all the popular discontent over the Iraq war. It so happens that McCain has neutralized his advantage on both issues! To be fair, this shows that McCain is probably not your usual calculating politician. He is an emotional and strong-willed guy who believes in certain things, from global democratic crusades to immigration. It's true he has flip-flopped on some issues, such as the religious right, but he is not nearly as cold-blooded as, say, Hillary. We can trust him that he really does believe in Holy War, American-style! And he really does hate torture and Guantanamo, since he was once a POW himself.

Eric Margolis: The Republicans may still hold on to power

Pat Buchanan: McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi

Justin Logan: Straight Talk and Militarist Madness

Justin Raimondo: The Madness of John McCain

Joshua Holland: McCain, the GOP Nominee? Bring Him On!

Joe Conason: What Will McCain Do Now?

Allen Raymond: What Dems Need to Know about McCain

TP: McCain votes against waterboarding ban

Alexander Cockburn: Mushrooming clouds hang over McCain

Back to the Home Page